re: individual differences
Tue, 16 May 1995 00:07:47 +0000

Bob Green writes, of problems his respondents had in either providing
constructs, or rating elements on them:

>Very few people were good at both, while I found one person who struggled
>with both. This finding may be an artefact of using case scenarios as
>elements >in the repertory grid. People with what could be labelled
>obsessional qualities >probably had the most trouble rating elements.

Well, yes, I once worked with a management accountant who absolutely
_froze_ on both tasks. (Cheapo joke response, albeit true.)

Well, one can ascribe enduring characteristics, or one might acknowledge
that the grid constitutes a meaningless task for some people, and find some
other way by which they can express the meaning they intend in a way that
suits our research needs. (Po-faced constructivist holier-than-thou
response, albeit also true.)

I know what you mean, though. Did you use supplied, detailed case
scenarios, or a series of eliciting statements in which each respondent
could provide his/her own particular set of scenarios that nevertheless
fitted your intended realm of discourse? Or there's always role titles as
elements instead, I guess, though it's probably too late for your needs.

The tyranny imposed by research design, what?

Kindest regards,

Devi Jankowicz